SHILLONG, April 23: The Meghalaya High Court has disposed of a public interest litigation challenging a proposed high-speed highway corridor in Ri-Bhoi district, observing that the concerns raised had been addressed and that authorities had committed to following due safeguards.
The petition had sought a halt to all acquisition, survey and preparatory work, while demanding disclosure of environmental and social impact studies, wider public consultation, and consideration of alternative alignments.
At the centre of the case was a 166.8-km greenfield corridor, of which around 144.8 km falls within Meghalaya. The petitioner argued that the alignment passes through a fragile hill ecosystem vulnerable to landslides, soil erosion and groundwater depletion, and raised concerns based on previous highway projects that allegedly led to ecological damage and delays.
The plea also flagged the route’s proximity to Lum Sohpetbneng, a site of cultural and religious significance, along with its passage through agricultural land, forests, water catchments and community-owned tribal areas.
In response, authorities informed the court that the project had received approval from the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs in May 2025 at an estimated cost of ₹22,864 crore. They stated that the corridor is aimed at improving regional connectivity, logistics efficiency and strategic access in the North-East, including areas near international borders.
Officials submitted that while the project falls within 100 km of an international boundary and is exempt from prior environmental clearance, it would still adhere to prescribed environmental safeguards. These include risk assessments, landslide mitigation, drainage protection and pollution control measures.
The design incorporates extensive infrastructure such as culverts, bridges and viaducts, along with slope stabilisation systems. Authorities also assured that forest clearances and compliance with the Forest Rights Act would be secured before construction begins.
Addressing cultural concerns, the government stated that the core sacred area of Lum Sohpetbneng lies outside the project’s impact zone. It added that alignment changes were made after consultations with local stakeholders to avoid water sources and minimise impact on agricultural land.
The state further clarified that ongoing activities are preliminary and do not amount to final land acquisition, with affected parties retaining the right to raise objections through due process.
Taking note of these submissions, the court found no merit in the petition and recorded that authorities had agreed to comply with all statutory requirements. It noted that steps would be taken to protect environmental and cultural assets and that necessary approvals would be obtained before the project proceeds.
The court, however, allowed scope for future legal recourse, stating that a fresh petition may be filed if a new cause of action arises.
